[EM] 01/05/03 - Two Replies for Olli:
olli.salmi at uusikaupunki.fi
Tue Jan 7 21:45:40 PST 2003
Thank you for your replies.
> Your example of three groups with 33 1/3% each exposes the falacy of the
>Droop quota. In the event an election method should be faced with
>perfection on the first count, the method should be able to handle
>perfection and report out perfect results.
>Hare Preference Voting can handle perfection and will report the results of
>your perfect election as:
> 33 1/3% A, 33 1/3% B, 33 1/3% C
>But, Droop Preference Voting cannot handle perfection. Its math will
>reduce each 33 1/3% down to 25% +1. The public should not like results of
>25 A, 25 B, 25 C, and 25% excluded after they have voted a perfect: 33
>1/3% A, 33 1/3% B, 33 1/3% C.
I can see nothing that could be excluded.
>In a real Droop election the officials most likely will merely declare
>A-B-C as the winners without doing the math of Droop. In this way they can
>hide the shame of the defective Droop from the public.
It's unnecessary to do the math because A, B and C reach the quota. You can
declare the result and have a coffee or whatever.
What do you propose to do if you use the Hare quota and there are four
rather equal candidates vying for three seats: 25.1% A, 25.1% B, 25.1%
C , 24.7% D?
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc),
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
More information about the Election-Methods